In Defense of The Individual Mandate: A Novel Interpretation

You make some fascinating points about the harm principle and paternalism. In your submission, there is mention of how public health risks need to be delineated from the economic ramifications that result from inaction of identified risks. Concerning the idea that the health impact of an obese person is borne by that individual alone and that it has no consequence on the rest of society is precisely what is in conflict with the research findings.

Over a ten-year period, available estimates based on the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model, predicts approximately $17 billion dollars in healthcare cost savings and a prevention of several adverse health outcomes related to obesity (Wang et al., 2012). Medicaid, which is funded by taxpayers tends to be the main means by which government pays for medical bills associated with obesity (Wang et al., 2012; Medical expenses related to obesity costs states billions, 2011). In 2011, Medicaid expenditure related to obesity in New York alone was estimated at approximately $4 billion (Medical expenses related to obesity costs states billions, 2011). According to Wang et al., (2012), the monetary costs to taxpayers is not the only burden society has to deal with but also lost productivity due to inability to work and having to take sick days.

So from what the research indicates, it is safe to say that engaging in unhealthy lifestyles as an individual does have an impact on society in general. The data further indicates that by imposing a tax on sugary drinks (Wang et al., 2012) there is an increased likelihood of reducing the economic burden on society. One can successfully argue then, that your interpretation of the Harm Principle is not entirely accurate, given the reduction in harm to society through a reasonable limit on individual autonomy. The individual mandate established by the Affordable Care Act can be argued along similar lines but that is a matter for another discussion.